linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception handling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49a3985a-4d4d-006a-499e-2270bd7db250@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:40:53 -0700
From:   "Asutosh Das (asd)" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: ufs: Add temperature notification exception
 handling

On 9/1/2021 9:39 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/1/21 5:37 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
>> It is essentially up to the platform to decide what further actions need
>> to be taken. So add a designated vop for that.  Each chipset vendor can
>> decide if it wants to use the thermal subsystem, hw monitor, or some
>> Privet implementation.
> 
> Why to make chipset vendors define what to do in case of extreme 
> temperatures? I'd prefer a single implementation in ufshcd.c instead of 
> making each vendor come up with a different implementation.
> 
I think it should be either i.e. if a vendor specific implementation is 
defined use that else use the generic implementation in ufshcd.
There may be a bunch of things that each vendor may need/want do 
depending upon use-case, I imagine.

>> +    void    (*temp_notify)(struct ufs_hba *hba, u16 status);
> 
> Please do not add new vops without adding at least one implementation of 
> that vop.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.


-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project